JUDGMENT Agarwala, J. - This is a Defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that the Plaintiff-Respondent is the owner of certain plots of land, situated in a village Kandrauli within the Municipal limits of the city of Kanauj which is an ancient town and it appears that a portion of it was included within the limits of the village Kandrauli. Plots Nos. 509, 410 (or perhaps 510) and 511 are three plots which are situated within the municipal limits of the city of Kanauj and are also included in Mahal Hyderali, patti No. 1 of village Kandrauli. The Defendant-Appellants are recorded in the khewat as the zamindars of this patti. Plot No. 509, formerly plot No. 415, was a grove in the possession of one Mohammad Beg. Claiming himself to be the proprietor of this grove, Mohammad Beg sold half of it to the Plaintiff in the year 1896. After his death his heirs sold the other half in the year 1899 to the Plaintiff so that the Plaintiff by the year 1899 came into possession of the entire grove. Thereafter the trees were cut or fell down and now it is a cultivated area. Plot No. 416, formerly plot No. 511, was the site of a house. It was purchased at two auction sales by the Plaintiff in the year 1892. The house no longer stands on the plot and it too is a cultivated area now. The sale certificates disclose that what was sold was not only the house but the site as well. The sale deeds by Mohd. Beg and his heirs were also of proprietary rights. The concurrent findings of both the courts below are that the village in which plots No. 509 and 511 are situated is not an agricultural village and that the Plaintiff has been is possession of these plots since his purchase without payment of any rent to the Defendant-Appellant, who is the zamindar of the patti in which the plots are situated, and that he has been in possession as a proprietor and not as a tenant or riyaya of the Defendant-Appellant. On these findings the courts below have given a decree to the Plaintiff in respect of these two plots. The suit has been dismissed in respect of the third plot No. 410 or may be 510. On these findings the courts below have given a decree to the Plaintiff in respect of these two plots. The suit has been dismissed in respect of the third plot No. 410 or may be 510. There is no appeal with regard to the dismissal of the suit in respect of that plot and I am not concerned with it in this appeal any more. 2. In this appeal learned Counsel for the Appellants has urged that the khewat shows that the Appellants are the proprietors of both the plots in dispute, inasmuch as these plots are included in the patti of which they are described as owners; that no adverse possession has been proved as no overt act disclaiming Defendant-Appellants' title was done by the Plaintiff, and that, therefore, the mere fact, that the Plaintiff or his predecessors-in-interest have been in possession for over 12 years without payment of any rent, does not prove that the Plaintiff has acquired title by adverse possession. He further urges that the mere fact that the plots are situated within the limits of a municipality does not take away the zamindar's lights and the Plaintiff cannot, therefore, deny that he is a tenant or riyaya of the Defendants-Appellants and assert that he is the proprietor thereof. 3. The law on the subject is not in doubt. In an agricultural village the zamindar is presumed to be the owner of every inch of land included with in the ambit of his zamindari. [Chajju Singh v. Kanhia, 1381 A.W.N. 114 and Shohrat Singh v. Jhagru, 13 A.L.J. 745]. If any portion of such land is in the possession or occupation of a person who is useful in the economy of the village, such as an agriculturist tenant or a barber or a blacksmith or a carpenter, the occupation or possession of that piece of land is not presumed to be adverse to the zamindar. Such persons will be presumed to be in possession by the permission, express or implied, of the zamindar. Where the land is in occupation of persons, who are not necessary for the purposes of village economy, the presumption will be that they are in possession adversely to the zamindar. Incha Ram v. Bande Ali Khan, 8 A.L.J. 877 (F.B.). In both eases the presumption is rebuttable. Where the land is in occupation of persons, who are not necessary for the purposes of village economy, the presumption will be that they are in possession adversely to the zamindar. Incha Ram v. Bande Ali Khan, 8 A.L.J. 877 (F.B.). In both eases the presumption is rebuttable. Where a piece of land formed part of an agricultural village, in the first instance, and later on it is included within the limits of a municipal area, Notified area or Town area, the rights that belonged to the zamindar, previous to such inclusion, are not effected by the inclusion-he remains the owner of the land and the occupiers of the land retain the status which they had prior to the inclusion. Hafiz Mohammad Ahmad Saeed Khan v. Shiam Lal, 1944 A.L.J. 321 (P.B.). If the land is not proved to be a part of an agricultural village at any anterior time and is part of a town or a city, there is neither the presumption of the ownnership of such land by the zamindar, nor is there the presumption that the land in the occupation of persons useful in village economy is deemed to be by permission of the zamindar. Occupiers of land in such places would be presumed to be in possession as proprietors. The present is a case in which the land in dispute is not shown to have formed part of an agricultural village at any time. Indeed, upon the findings recorded by the courts below the land in suit formed part of an ancient city and was included at a subsequent stage in a village and even though so included, never ceased to be a part of the city. In such circumstances there is no presumption that the Defendants are the proprietors of the land even though their names be recorded as owners of the mahal or the patti. The Defendants could prove their ownership of the plots in suit by proving the possesion or ownership oftheir own or of their predecessors in title prior to the possession of the predecessors in title of the Plaintiff. They could not prove their ownership by the mere production of the entry in the khewat of a period during which the Plaintiff or his predecessor have been in possession specially when the land does not from part of an agricultural village and forms part of a city. They could not prove their ownership by the mere production of the entry in the khewat of a period during which the Plaintiff or his predecessor have been in possession specially when the land does not from part of an agricultural village and forms part of a city. After all entries in revenue papers are based on possession and not on title and they cannot furnish proof of ownership when some body else is in possession. 4. Assuming, however, that the Defendants Appellants are the zamindars of the plots in suit, they must be deemed to have lost their rights by reason of the adverse possession of the Plaintiff. It is in evidence that the purchases made by the Plaintiff-Respondent were of the proprietary rights in the plots. He has been in occupation for more than 12 years in pursuance of those purchases. His possession was, therefore, adverse. It is not necessary that the adverse possession should be brought to the knowledge of the real owner. It is enough that it was open and continuous and that its real nature could be known by the true owner by the exercise of due diligence. Srish(sic) Chandra Nandy v. Baijnath Jugal Kishore 1935 A.W.R. (H.C.) 191. 5. I, think the view taken by the learned Judge of the court below was right. There is no force in this appeal and I dissmiss it with costs.